civilized ku # 669 ~ bereft of discernment / understanding
Monday, September 13, 2010 at 08:46AM 
Schooners ~ Shumway Marina on the Genesee River - Rochester, NY • click to embiggenOn Friday's entry, civilized ku # 663 - fried crap on a stick, I presented a few statements from others on the notion of light, AKA - the light. Today, I give you a few counterpoints by others:
Before I became a picture editor, I assumed that “good photographers” took “good pictures” because they had a special eye. What I found was that good photographers take good pictures because they take great pains to have good subjects in front of their cameras .... It is not important if photographs are “good.” It’s important that they are interesting. What makes a photograph interesting? I’ll count the ways: It can be our first look at something. It can be entertaining. It can evoke deep emotions. It can be amusing or thrilling or intriguing. It can be proof of something. It can jog memories or raise questions. It can be beautiful. It can convey authority. Most often, it informs. And, it can surprise. ~ John Loengard
and (for the gazillionth time on this site):
There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light. There is just light. ~ Brooks Jensen
It is also worth mentioning that, on civilized ku # 663 - fried crap on a stick, stu newberry (no link provided) opined that:
I detect a buncha' bullshit on your part regarding light and subject matter.
stu apparently came to this dubious conclusion, at least in part, based on the fact that I made these pictures and this pictures. Pictures which, according to stu's eye and sensibilities, are all about "the light" and that I made those pictures with the intent that the depicted object(s) is nothing and that I felt that the subject is less important than "the light" - neither of which were my intent nor my feelings, re: the light and/or the subject/object depicted.
In fact, I have never made a picture that is purely about the light. If I were interested in chasing just "the light", I would most likely just carry around an 18% gray cube (and a small piece of white seamless on which to place it) in order to put it in "the light" and then snap away.
That said, Sven W (on the same entry) was much more discerning, re: my comments, when he opined that the quoted comments thereon
... gives an insight to the mindset of the pretty picture crowd - the subject is a vehicle or starting point for the main game, which is pretty colours and light effects.
Reader Comments (1)
The poster could indict Brooks Jensen along the same lines for comments Brooks has made along the lines of " the light was amazing". I don't see any contradiction between marveling at the light at one moment and not limiting yourself to only marvelous light at another.
And further while our eyes respond to light, I don't think we see much when we look at light. If you've ever had an eye exam, consider what you see when the doctor dilates the pupil and examines the interior of the eye. Or look directly into a lit flashlight and consider what you see or a naked light bulb.